Gas smell after very short run?

Page 3 of 4  


Your friend's friend is a psychic doctor? Or is that your odd way of claiming you are infinitely more qualified than a career auto mechanic? Maybe you are just fond of wacky non sequiturs, since I didn't mention anything about my sense of smell.
Dillon asked an honest question and I provided an honest answer from a source I trust. He is entitled to know what I was told by a qualified mechanic, whether it fits your explanation, or mine, or neither. What he does with the info is his business. I would have reported it all the same, though I have the distinct impression you would not have been so impartial. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me - I have certainly been wrong from time to time, often quite publicly - but the boorishness of your posts is inexcusable. As you may have guessed, what you think no longer has any importance to me, and I am sure the feeling is mutual... so why the snide comments?
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Michael Pardee wrote:

dude, you're being an ass. the explanation i gave you is a dumbed down version of the physics involved. it happens, whether you like it or not.
as for your "friend", if someone came to me and said they could smell gas, i'd say you needed to check for leaks. BUT /i/ would also ask what the situation was, and given the facts from the OP, and knowing the science, the reality goes beyond that. and if your "friend" /doesn't/ ask those kinds of questions, it's because they ant you out of their hair ASAP.
oh, the temerity for calling a drama queen for what they are. left to your own devices, you'd have had the whole damned neighborhood burned down by now just to prove a point.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jim beam wrote:

Wassamattah beam??? Them turd feedin' boids peckin' away at you again?
JT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Dumbed down doesn't begin to cover it - your explanation is about as dumb as they come. Where in the world did you get that stupid idea about the injectors wetting the inside of the intake? You can't be that grossly ignorant of basic fuel system operation. You must know injectors produce a fine mist, and that if the injectors don't do that they have to be cleaned or replaced. How could you not know that the manifold is a wind tunnel at that point, which makes it impossible for the manifold to collect gasoline? Have you *ever* flow and pattern tested a fuel injector? No, you obviously haven't - you wouldn't parade your ignorance if you had ever seen it with your own eyes. That is to say nothing of the ludicrous concept that the gasoline vapors would pour past the closed throttle plate and through the air filter and intake plumbing to create the "strong smell" the OP reported.
I'm sure you will favor us with the equations for your "physics" for all that - you are bragging you understand all that. You can even "dumb it down" by leaving out the partial pressures of the more volatile components of the winter blend being used and assume it is all octane. It isn't even all that hard - by estimating the cross-section of the intake manifold branches and using the known displacement and idle RPMs you can calculate the peak and average air velocities past the injectors. With your superior knowledge of physics I'm sure you can calculate the average particle size of the injector output for the rated rail pressure and the fluid flow equations for the dispersal in the intake, including the lateral displacement of the plume in the previously calculated air stream. You can also calculate the diffusion past the obstacles I mentioned (you can assume a 500 millibar drop across the throttle plate at idle - it will be close enough for this purpose and will allow you to estimate the effective throttle opening at idle) to arrive at the vapor outflow rate at the mouth of the intake. Otherwise stop with your bogus claim of "physics." If you nail the equations I won't even take exception at your petty insults. Otherwise we will know you are a loudmouth know-nothing... as if we really doubted it now.
Put up or shut up.
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Michael Pardee wrote:

oh brother - where do we start with you michael? how about we start with the fact that gasoline is liquid. it takes time and energy to evaporate. add air to the mix, and the evaporation rate changes. and if it's sprayed onto cold metal, which it is until the engine warms up, a significant portion /remains/ liquid. that's why injection runs rich on cold engines. if it didn't, there'd be no need to do that!

nope.
oh dear, wrong again.
- you wouldn't parade your ignorance if you had ever seen it with

red herring if you don't understand basics like evaporation.

er, intake mass flow is not "diffusion".

translate pressure drop into evaporation at ambient. show the cooling effect if you want to show off.

so why run rich on cold start mike?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jim beam wrote:

http://i40.tinypic.com/n4zfhw.jpg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Stop waffling and show us the math. You claim the atmosphere is condensing, which is contrary to the entire point of electronic fuel injection (if it is condensing, the indefinite lag makes control of the mixture impossible). In your fantasy world a carburetor would work every bit as well; just shove gasoline down its throat and the engine runs when cold. You call it "physics", so I want to see it. It's your screwball theory - defend it or stop spouting nonsense. So far, everything you have asserted has only illuminated your ignorance of automotive basics. If your vision of "spraying the gasoline onto cold metal" were accurate the engine would already be flooded, as anybody who has dealt with a flooded engine knows.
You seem to have no idea what "rich" means in this context. The problem is one of producing a combustible mixture at the plug in spite of the lower vapor pressures at lower temperatures. To do that the mixture is shifted toward the rich end, but there is not a lot of margin for movement; if the mixture goes above 13.1:1 (from the nominal 14.7:1 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoichiometry) it won't burn - the engine is flooded. From "The Physics Factbook" at hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/ShaniChristopher.shtml "The mixture cannot burn when it contains more than 7.6% gasoline because it is too rich to burn." Ideal 6.8%, maximum 7.6%, or no more than an extra 12% or the engine floods - that is what "rich" means in a gasoline engine.
I'm still waiting for the physics you claim, professor, not hand waving arguments. You are still off on that garbage about the injectors "spraying onto cold metal" - which is strange, since you claim to have flow and pattern tested injectors; you would not think such a stupid thing if you even understood the significance of the pattern. You have not offered even an explanation how the injector output, even if it were a stream, would end up on the intake wall instead of being summarily sucked into the cylinders as it must be for EFI to operate.
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Michael Pardee wrote:

http://i40.tinypic.com/n4zfhw.jpg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

From the last two paragraphs on that page, "Defining the geometric alignment of fuel sprays... will allow the selection of fuel injectors which will control or minimize manifold wall fuel condensation in the area of the intake duct and the intake valves." "Compared with carburetor engines and single-point injection systems, manifold-wall fuel condensation in multipoint injection systems is reduced significantly." I heard that somewhere before... oh, right! I pointed that out to you and you arrogantly waved it off, preferring to insult me instead. It appears the best you can do is discredit your own contentions. You have also failed to address the problems of getting vapors past the throttle, the air filter and the intake plumbing, and into the ambient air in sufficient concentration to produce the "strong smell" that started this whole thread..
You insisted you had "physics" and you are still waving your hands around. Can you or can you not present the physics you insist is the basis of your argument?
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 13:27:46 -0700, Michael Pardee wrote:

No, he cannot. He's just talking out of his ass, and doesn't know what he's saying.
--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Michael Pardee wrote:

now let's see:
1. i explain the wetting situation, but the drama queen goes nuclear with "if tomorrow the OP reports a fire that destroys his Fit and possibly his home".
2. i cite a text book corroborating precisely what i explained, but based on the above, it's apparently too hard to understand.
and yet i am the one with the problem! ridiculous.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 07:52:17 -0800, jim beam wrote:

Yes.
You are.
--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So in answer to my question, after four opportunities you can *not* present the "physics" you have been babbling about. You are a fraud.
You aren't keeping up with the subject at all. Your points were disproven by the source you cited as detailed in the last post (did you even read the page you posted?) You haven't tried to explain how the remnant of vapor in the manifold is supposed to get out, or quantify the amount in the manifold, or answer *any* relevant question posed. You ridiculed the evaluation of a professional, just because you didn't like what he had to say. Your myth is busted but you still think you must save face rather than admit an error like normal people do.
You are indeed the one with the problems - you are unable to keep up with even this simple subject, instead rambling and blustering with every post, just as you did this time. You use bullying taunts (as you just did again) to try to deflect examination of your errors - an even uglier problem that does not speak well of your present mental capacity. Those are really huge problems you have. I hope you are just drunk when you post, because it is really sad to think of you having those deficiencies when sober. Take care of yourself.
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Michael Pardee wrote:

it's in the book cite i gave you!!! if you don't see or understand that, it's not my fault!

no, i ridicule the "interpreted" version you give - the one you filtered through your lack of understanding.

wow. utter lack of comprehension!

whatever you say. don't bother with an engineering career though mike - you're out of your depth.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Too late - I was a senior communications field engineer for a Fortune 100 company from about 1990 to about 2005. Now a senior IS field tech for the same company; more challenging, more troubleshooting, pays better, get stranded in some of the most beautiful places in Northern Arizona. Among other duties, I determine where microwave system troubles originate and go there with what I expect to need to correct the problem - which can include damage from lightning strikes - and I have to make it happen better than 9 times out of 10. I describe the job as "taking Computer Age skills to the end of Bronze Age roads in any weather at any time of day or night." I have been a troubleshooter professionally since August 10, 1970, after I got my FCC First Class Radiotelephone license at age 17, and as an amateur since I was 14 years old. I have done essentially all the maintenance on the cars in my family since moving to Arizona in 1974, taking most of them beyond the 20 year mark. (BTW, I have never in my life had a grade lower than an A on any physics test.) Your qualifications?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Michael Pardee wrote:

dude, i have the first class comms licence books on my desk right now. passing that stuff at 14 is not exactly a landmark of academic achievement.
i'll stop there.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

At 17. You talk a big game but never take the field. Since 2/3 of applicants failed the test the first time around it isn't as trivial as you make it out to be. Actually, element 3 (not element 4) was the one that got most people. Several questions in the real test had more than one right answer: In a transmitting tetrode, when the plate is tuned to resonance the (A) plate current rises (B) screen current rises (C) cathode current drops (D) grid current drops. I remember it because it was the most esoteric question on the test, and my favorite. The answer was (C); although B was also correct it is not used as an indication of resonance because it can be the result of other operating conditions. (A is simply wrong, D is an indication of improper neutralization.) But I'm sure you would have breezed through, what with your superior abilities and all.
BTW - if the book still refers to first and second class licenses you should retire it, even if it is the classic study guide "Electronic Communication" by my friend in the San Leandro Amateur Radio Club, Robert Shrader. The "class" licenses were replaced by General Radiotelephone licenses around 1985, when only the international classes of stations were retained as requiring them. The bottom line is: before I was old enough to buy tobacco, but smart enough not to, I was licensed to be employed as chief engineer at any radio or television broadcast station or any other transmitting site in the US.
So, again, what are your qualifications? What are you hiding?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Michael Pardee wrote:

/WOW/!!!! oh, wait, i'm not impressed.

you're a service tech. whoopee.

wouldn't you like to know!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That says it all. You have no qualifications whatsoever. We suspected as much but at least we heard it from you. That explains why you refused (were unable?) to stay on topic and squirmed whenever the topic became in the least technical. It also explains why the big bluff of having "physics" but never delivering.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Michael Pardee wrote:

wow, look at the idiot trying to start a fight he won't win! do you want to lose a penis measuring contest as well?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.